QF to cancel A380 order?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be surprised if QF does cancel. Due to weight problems, the pax load is already down from 555 to 460 and may fall further. The original business case was shot once the weight overrun exceed 4 tonnes. QF is attempting to cover the revenue by jacking up Business Class. One proposal being to have all the upper deck devoted to J.
Of course they could take the aircraft, transfer them to JQ, operate the 320 / 380 on a common rating under the excellent (for AJ) agreement just voted in. The 787 could go to the mainline. EK is planning to operate the 380 as an LCC buster. As sillier a thought as some of the others floating around.
Of course they could take the aircraft, transfer them to JQ, operate the 320 / 380 on a common rating under the excellent (for AJ) agreement just voted in. The 787 could go to the mainline. EK is planning to operate the 380 as an LCC buster. As sillier a thought as some of the others floating around.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Expat land
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the final nail in the coffin may be proposed landing fees from Heathrow and perhaps others. Due to increased wake turb separation requirements and the huge capital work program to accomodate it, the landing fee for an A380 will be around double that of a B747 (helped by the severe lack of airports capable of taking the aircraft). I understand a 5 tonne blow out in empty weight makes USA - Melbourne payload limited.
Of course Boeings don't always deliver either - Rolls Royce paid significant fuel penalties to Qantas for 10 years after they ordered RR powered B744s.
Common sense would suggest QF would be covering their options. Would have to be brave to cancel the A380 with its potential, but would be wise to have a fallback option if it proves a dud. Peter Gregg was recently quoted as saying there'd be another fleet announcement in 3 to 4 months
Of course Boeings don't always deliver either - Rolls Royce paid significant fuel penalties to Qantas for 10 years after they ordered RR powered B744s.
Common sense would suggest QF would be covering their options. Would have to be brave to cancel the A380 with its potential, but would be wise to have a fallback option if it proves a dud. Peter Gregg was recently quoted as saying there'd be another fleet announcement in 3 to 4 months
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Poto, I said that about 12 months ago, although only speculation I expect if the QF group do not cancel their order, the airframes will go to Jetstar.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If QF cannot make a profit with the A380, why should J* be any different?
No-one will look at an A380, see a big orange star on it and think they should charge any less for services for it than one with a white rat.
There is no such thing as:
*Low cost fuel,
*Low cost Airways and Nav charges,
*Low cost maintenance,
*Low cost landing charges,
*Low cost handling charges
*Low cost spares...
If they sent it to LHR it would have to be fully catered for the length of the flight, even if the punters have to buy the food.
The only difference would be the pittance they would pay the pilots and the FA's. Whilst it still is a pittance, we are talking a fraction of a fraction of the total operating cost of the aeroplane.
Filling it with 700-800 backpackers crammed in for a 22 hour fun-fest to LHR would last about 2 weeks till word of mouth got around. Can you imagine it?
No-one will look at an A380, see a big orange star on it and think they should charge any less for services for it than one with a white rat.
There is no such thing as:
*Low cost fuel,
*Low cost Airways and Nav charges,
*Low cost maintenance,
*Low cost landing charges,
*Low cost handling charges
*Low cost spares...
If they sent it to LHR it would have to be fully catered for the length of the flight, even if the punters have to buy the food.
The only difference would be the pittance they would pay the pilots and the FA's. Whilst it still is a pittance, we are talking a fraction of a fraction of the total operating cost of the aeroplane.
Filling it with 700-800 backpackers crammed in for a 22 hour fun-fest to LHR would last about 2 weeks till word of mouth got around. Can you imagine it?
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know which would be worse...
work as a fa with J* international on an all y/c A-380 with 700 or so backpackers (Ahll have a lager thanks..ok that will be 3 quid thanks pal x 700) or...
work as an E.P instructor or
work in the mail room or anywhere in QCC1 and put up with all that politically correct political BS !!!!!!!
work as a fa with J* international on an all y/c A-380 with 700 or so backpackers (Ahll have a lager thanks..ok that will be 3 quid thanks pal x 700) or...
work as an E.P instructor or
work in the mail room or anywhere in QCC1 and put up with all that politically correct political BS !!!!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The_Cutest_of_Borg said .....
There is no such thing as:
*Low cost maintenance
AMEN to that !!!!!
And I thought this farcical thread would never last...
There is no such thing as:
*Low cost maintenance
AMEN to that !!!!!
And I thought this farcical thread would never last...
Last edited by Bolty McBolt; 4th Apr 2006 at 15:19.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Next to Bay 8
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 12 whales that QF have ordered aren't even enough to cover the SYD-LHR & LAX routes... as was previously mentioned another fleet announcement is due soon, and there are a LOT of 747s to replace yet. Who knows whether or not the 380 will be canned, but the 747-8 would have to be on the cards... wouldn't it? Surely they wouldn't go with just the 773ER???
Evertonian
An easy way to get the A380 underweight would be to install all those space hungry lounges & duty free shops on board.
TCOB I imagine the only savings that QF would get by operating it under the J* banner would be the costs that are under their control, such as workforce etc.
TCOB I imagine the only savings that QF would get by operating it under the J* banner would be the costs that are under their control, such as workforce etc.
Nunc est bibendum
Originally Posted by Baxter Dewall
Poto,
Funny you say that as I heard exactly the same thing today.
Funny you say that as I heard exactly the same thing today.
When you live....
Originally Posted by The_Cutest_of_Borg
There is no such thing as:
..
..
..
*Low cost landing charges,
*Low cost handling charges
..
If they sent it to LHR it would have to be fully catered for the length of the flight, even if the punters have to buy the food.
..
..
..
*Low cost landing charges,
*Low cost handling charges
..
If they sent it to LHR it would have to be fully catered for the length of the flight, even if the punters have to buy the food.
For other cheaper handling charges, busses at Syd to the s/w corner of the 16R/07 intersection or some other out-of-the-way corner.
Fully catered at PAYG prices is a complete turn-around on full-serivce cost levels.
Not saying it's right but it IS possible.
For mine though, it can't happen as the 380 MUST be the flagship of any airline that owns for public image reasons and therefore must fly under the red rat tail.
UTR
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: AUH
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C O B,
For info the 380 needs a 60m wide runway, and any airport that can handle a A346 or B773 is of the right size for the 380 to taxi around. If the wings don't fit at the gate, stairs can be used on lower doors to board etc at a remote stand.
The quote of .86 in the cruise is on the money.
I have spent a bit of time (on behalf of my employer) looking at the VVIP config of this one. No restrictions to any of the airfields we fly to now in a B744. In fact they reckon because of the extra wheels it is kinder to the runways taxiways etc.
Our discussions with Boeing about the 748 are also ongoing. There is a problem at the moment that to carry the weight of the required fit we need, and the range we require, the CofG becomes very restrictive. This I think, will also be of some interest to PAX fleet operators, but I am sure in time it will be fixed.
For info the 380 needs a 60m wide runway, and any airport that can handle a A346 or B773 is of the right size for the 380 to taxi around. If the wings don't fit at the gate, stairs can be used on lower doors to board etc at a remote stand.
The quote of .86 in the cruise is on the money.
I have spent a bit of time (on behalf of my employer) looking at the VVIP config of this one. No restrictions to any of the airfields we fly to now in a B744. In fact they reckon because of the extra wheels it is kinder to the runways taxiways etc.
Our discussions with Boeing about the 748 are also ongoing. There is a problem at the moment that to carry the weight of the required fit we need, and the range we require, the CofG becomes very restrictive. This I think, will also be of some interest to PAX fleet operators, but I am sure in time it will be fixed.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paradise
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going B
Thanks for that but with a reasonable paylod on QF long haul it would have to fly slower to get the range (up to 1 hour longer on a certain route). That figure is what Airbus is quoting no different to Cessna/Piper advertising "It has this range and can carry this much" but do the sums and it cant do both at the same time.
From current planning figures the whale will have to fly slower to make the distance with a reasonable payload = longer time on ur but.
Defeats the purpose of having a bigger toy when the sandpit takes longer to traverse.
Thanks for that but with a reasonable paylod on QF long haul it would have to fly slower to get the range (up to 1 hour longer on a certain route). That figure is what Airbus is quoting no different to Cessna/Piper advertising "It has this range and can carry this much" but do the sums and it cant do both at the same time.
From current planning figures the whale will have to fly slower to make the distance with a reasonable payload = longer time on ur but.
Defeats the purpose of having a bigger toy when the sandpit takes longer to traverse.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mysalami, I'd heard that a couple of the big issues with the aircraft were:
1. Horizontal splay with the higher tail requiring some airports to position the parallel taxiway further from the runway and holding points back as well.
2. Loading fuel, pax, food and offloading sewage and garbage in the same time frame, and
3. Positioning the aircraft at gates where the extra wingspan intrudes on space on either side.
Are these still issues?
Unrelated to initial posting, but interested nevertheless.
1. Horizontal splay with the higher tail requiring some airports to position the parallel taxiway further from the runway and holding points back as well.
2. Loading fuel, pax, food and offloading sewage and garbage in the same time frame, and
3. Positioning the aircraft at gates where the extra wingspan intrudes on space on either side.
Are these still issues?
Unrelated to initial posting, but interested nevertheless.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney , Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mysalami
C O B,
No restrictions to any of the airfields we fly to now in a B744. In fact they reckon because of the extra wheels it is kinder to the runways taxiways etc.
.
No restrictions to any of the airfields we fly to now in a B744. In fact they reckon because of the extra wheels it is kinder to the runways taxiways etc.
.
dont know if you looked at any photo's circulating of the landing gear that was being dragged when it was taxied due to no main body steering like the 747's have